The wrong mention of number of Vehicle through which the goods were in transit and detained by the taxing authorities would be considered as a human error.

The proceedings has been initiated solely on the basis of presumption that goods having been brought into the State using two different vehicles by same e-way bill. Once, it was found that the vehicle was carrying the required documents along with the e-way bill, no question arose for taking some other view.

The petitioner’s challenge, in the present batch of petitions, is three-fold. First, the petitioner claims that it is an educational institution and is covered under the exemption under Entry 66 of the Notification dated 28.06.2017. Second, the petitioner submits that notwithstanding the above, it would be entitled to exemption for tax on services rendered in conducting examination Third, the petitioner challenges the Circular dated 17.06.2021 in as much as it refers to the fee charge for FMGE Screening Test as a fee for accreditation.

The detention is fully based upon the foundation that the TDS-01 form was not accompanied along with the goods which were in transit. The orders impugned cannot be sustained and are quashed.

A present petition has been filed challenging the order passed in the exercise of powers under Section 73 of GST Act as well as the order whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. The original order suffers from the vice of not following the mandatory provisions under Section 75(4) of GST Act and thus, is clearly contrary to the mandate cast by virtue of Section 75(4) of GST Act and is also in violation of principles of natural justice, thus, this court deem it appropriate to quash both the orders and remand the matter to the assessing authority to pass fresh orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner

This Court would refrain from commenting anything on the merits of the case. However, confining itself only to the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of bail, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for grant of regular bail. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders whereby the demand has been confirmed against the petitioner under section 74 of the GST Act as well as the order whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as having become time barred. Considering the fact that in the present case also, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner, neither any date for hearing was fixed, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Judgment is reserved. SC granted time of two weeks to the learned counsel appearing for the parties to put in brief written submissions

It is settled law that after participating in a tender process, bidder cannot turn around and challenge the conditions in the bid document. This writ petition is dismissed

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order rejecting their application seeking refund, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned order is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law.

It is the discretion of the Adjudicating Authority to extend the period of the E-Way Bill up to 8 hours from the time of its expiry. The Adjudicating Authority failed to exercise its discretion. On this score, the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority is liable to be set aside.

The assessment proceedings suffer from serious procedural errors in absence of a proper show-cause notice. The matter is remitted to the adjudicating authority to proceed in accordance with law afresh after issuing a proper show cause notice